Jon S, List, Jon concluded:
I wonder if I am simply looking at all of this from a different perspective than your "vectorial" analysis--which, by the way, I value greatly for having helped me sort out my concept of the "logic of ingenuity" in engineering (1ns/3ns/2ns). Well, I'm certainly pleased that vectorial analysis has proved helpful to you in developing your "logic of ingenuity" in engineering, your recent series of articles on the topic being very solid work indeed in my opinion. I offered a 'variation' on the bean example because of a point I'd recently made regarding the importance I give to a kind of abduction where the law (rule) is *not* known, where the hypothesis is concerned with positing a *hitherto unknown law*. Perhaps the bean example doesn't work very well for that purpose, but I will stick with my vectorial analysis for abduction, or perhaps, retroduction: that one forms the abduction of the new law all-at-once-together out of the storehouse of ones knowledge of the issue which only the testing of it will show as confomring to reality or not. I'm afraid that I am not able to grasp the analysis in the penultimate paragraph of your message. But, again, your response may be the result of my trying to generalize Peirce's vectorial order for abduction from the bean example which, admittedly, is explicitly concerned with the kind of 'sleuthing' abduction (whereas the rule *is* already knowns) I referred to in an earlier post. Perhaps that stretches the bean example further than it ought to be taken. But did I present a kind of induction in my recent analysis? I don't think so. It's just not the kind of abduction the bean example was divised to illustrate, thus, my 'variation'. But, be that as it may, I think I've said all I have to say on the topic for now. Thanks for reading through my extended analysis which, I hope, at least put some light on the 6 vectors themselves, whether or not they apply to all inference patterns neatly or not. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > > > Thank you for taking the time to provide a very thorough explanation of > your position. There is much to ponder, but for now I just want to offer a > few initial comments. > > > > GR: So, as I see it, this is the path of one of the patterns of > inference, namely, abduction. In this variation of the bean example, I will > *presume* that all the beans from this bag are white *because* I see a > handfull of white beans lying near that bag, and so I suppose that a > sampling of the bag will show them *possibly* to be white. > > > > This makes it seem like the hypothesis is the Rule, but in CP 2.623, the > hypothesis is the Case. In other words, your description here sounds to me > more like induction than abduction. That these beans are white is an > observed fact (Secondness), not a mere possibility (Firstness). That all > beans from this bag are white is a known law (Thirdness), not a mere > supposition (Firstness); per EP 2.441, it corresponds to the circumstances > of the surprising fact's occurrence. The only conjecture (Firstness) is > that these beans are (plausibly) from this bag. Hence 2ns/3ns/1ns, > consistent with the sequence in CP 5.189. > > > > I guess a question in my mind now is whether Rule, Case, and Result have > to be assigned to the same category for all three inference forms. In > deduction, the Case is the observed fact, rather than the Result; but the > Result is not a conjecture, it follows necessarily from the Rule and Case. > In induction, both the Case and the Result are observed facts. I wonder if > I am simply looking at all of this from a different perspective than your > "vectorial" analysis--which, by the way, I value greatly for having helped > me sort out my concept of the "logic of ingenuity" in engineering > (1ns/3ns/2ns). > > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
